On Security Supplementary Liability Of The Obligor

Before the end of the 1990s ,the theory on the obligation of security guarantee merely refers to the security guarantee obligation of matter, does not include the security guarantee obligation of man. Hence , the manager didn't bear the liability to the third party tort.Since the end of the 1990s, with more and more criminal action in the business place and the intensified right conscious of the people, some victims who are injured by the third party bring the claims against the business managers, claiming that the business managers should bear compensation liability to the damages caused by the unidentified third party.Based on the judgment experiences, 《the interpretation of some issues on the application of law about the cases of body damage compensation》 was enacted by the Supreme People's Court on December 26, 2003. According to Arts.6 , Section 2, The third party, who's invading action cause the damages, should bear compensation liability. The person at fault who has obligation of security guarantee should bear the liability within the limit of his capacity of avoiding and reducing damages. The person who has obligation of security guarantee can recover the compensation from the third party after he has finished the payment of compensation. The third party should be the common defendant with the except of that the third party can not be identified, when the person who has right on the compensation bring a suit going against the person who has obligation of security guarantee ,to a People's court. This section provides the cases of third party tort in two situations: (1) Given the invading action of the third party causes the damages while the person who has obligation of security guarantee has no fault of neglecting the security guarantee obligation, it's the third party not the person who has obligation of security guarantee that should bear compensation liability. (2) Given the invading action of the third party causes the damages while the person who has obligation of security guarantee has fault, the person at fault who has obligation of security guarantee should bear the liability within the limit of his capacity of avoiding and reducing damages. The person who has obligation of security guarantee can recover the compensation from the third party after he has finished the payment of compensation.It's ought to be admitted that this regulation is of the great significance. It's the first time that the obligation of security guarantee is regulated in the law in our country. It's the first time that the law regulates that the person at fault who has obligation of security guarantee should bear supplementary compensation liability to the damages caused by the third party. It's of the great significance in the sense of protecting the right and benefit of the victims and coordinating our theory of security guarantee obligation with other countries'.However, Arts.6 , Section 2 of the ? interpretation ? fund the situation that the third party tort causes the damages . Analyzing through the cause , we can find that the third party tort is the directly fundamental cause of that the damages and the failure of the person who has obligation of security guarantee to perform his obligation only causes the probability of damages increasing. So, it's unduly strict with the person who has obligation of security guarantee if the person who has obligation of security guarantee is asked to bear Supplementary compensation liability to the damages with the third party in the judgment and the frequently practice is that the person who has obligation of security guarantee bears all the compensation liability.Hence , the author suggests that the content of this article of the ? interpretation ? should be more clear and definite not only to protect the benefit of the person who has right on the compensation but also to be less strict with the person who has the obligation of security guarantee.